Free Speech: The Outrage Override

Whom do you hate? Perhaps you hate Nazis, or the Taliban, or people who discriminate against homosexuals. Maybe you hate homosexuals. Homosexuality, we are told in Deuteronomy, and in many hateful sermons, is an abomination. Ought such hateful talk be forbidden? In Canada, just a few years ago, a man peacefully distributed pamphlets denouncing as sinful the introduction of homosexuality into the curriculum of the Saskatoon Public Schools. Four gay citizens complained to the authorities and he was punished — obliged to pay them $17,500 because their feelings had been hurt.

In Canada (a country of which I am very fond) one has the right not to be offended. The human rights law there prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons.”

What about those sincere Christian clergymen who hate homosexuality and express that hate in their sermons? The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, guardian of the dignity of the citizens of that Province, tells us that it is all right to express the opinion that homosexuality is sinful, but this message must always be delivered in a way that does not come across as hateful to one’s listeners. Any speech is hate speech (in Canada) when some folks are offended by it.

That’s the way it is in very many countries. In the Netherlands, this is the law: “He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion, or their life philosophy, their sexual orientation, or their physical or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year”” It is still lawful to insult people in Holland, but only in some ways. Be careful.

Be even more careful in France, where public and private communication that is defamatory or insulting, or that incites discrimination or hatred against a person or group of persons on account of ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or handicap is strictly prohibited.
In Germany, watch out! Up to five years imprisonment may be the sentence suffered by speakers who “call for”arbitrary measures against parts of the population, or insult, or maliciously slur or defame them.”

In India any manner of expression is prohibited that someone might consider insulting to his religion. And so on and on — in Ireland and Norway, in Poland and the UK, in Singapore and South Africa. Over most of the globe, what you may lawfully say or write is sharply restricted by the sensibilities of others. Being nice is held more important than being free.

If you find all this disheartening, as I do, take some consolation in this: our country, the United Sates of America, is unique in the world in formally defending the freedom of speech, even when it is hateful. Instances of this defense are innumerable. The classic case, of course, was that of the American Nazi Party, which sought (in 1978) to march with banners and symbols in the streets of Skokie, Illinois, whose population is very largely Jewish. Why did they choose Skokie? Because they aimed to unify Jew-haters, and (they explained) where there are the most Jews there are also sure to be the most Jew haters. I wrote vigorously in the pages of The Nation defending their right to march; the American Civil Liberties Union, in which I was then active, defended in court their right to march, and ultimately prevailed.

As a consequence of that success, membership in the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, heavily Jewish, fell by almost half. Many who had loyally defended the freedom of speech over the years could not tolerate the exercise of that freedom by them! I call this the “outrage override.” Freedom of speech, sure — but not for views as ugly and abhorrent as theirs! And so it has been in our country over the years, the identity of the intolerably outrageous group changing from time to time: atheists, anarchists, Nazis, communists — and now the latest batch of scoundrels: racists spewing hate speech.

Of course racists really are nasty, and the hate speech in which they indulge really is disgusting. That belief, adopted thoughtfully and rationally, we hold with the same conviction and passion that has motivated every outrage override in its historical turn. But the freedom to speak on matters of public concern is not divisible by topic or party. We will protect that freedom for everyone, including nasty and disgusting folks, or we will lose it.

At the University of Michigan, always a leader in political correctness, faculty members were dismissed, a few decades ago, for their un-American political views. Now, in self-punishment, we hold an annual lecture on free speech issues in their honor. Much more recently we had a speech code here at Michigan to protect the sensibilities of women and minorities, but it was struck down by a court from which we received, abashedly, a very stern lecture, well deserved.

But as a country we are not doing too badly in this arena. The First Amendment is the glory of our Constitution; nowhere else in the world is there constitutional protection for speech as forthright and as forceful. Yes, it does have some rough consequences, because speech can insult, can belittle, can incite and can offend. Our Canadian brethren are kind and protective, but unwise. There can be no right, in an open and diverse society, not to be offended. If you think Jews are pushy, you are free to say that publicly among us; and if you think blacks are lazy, or Polacks are dumb — and so on — you may say that too.

You may publish views that are stupid and mean, and you may parade through public streets proclaiming your favorite hatred. This is a critical part of what it means to say, as we often do, that “we live in a free country.” Freedom can hurt, and it often does — but it is far, far more important in the body politic than being nice.

In every generation that lesson must be re-learned. This very year the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court was obliged to teach it once again, in a vexed dispute about some truly hateful public speaking that, in our country, was protected here as it would have been nowhere else. For the Court majority Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

“. . .speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'”
[Snyder v. Phelps, 2 March 2011]

The best response to nasty speech is more speech, not laws or codes to restrict speech. Of course we don’t welcome hate speech, or commend it. But when we confront it, Americans may take pride, in a deep way, in the fact that even they have the right to say their piece!

Carl Cohen

Carl Cohen is a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The above article will appear in the Fall, 2011 issue of “Consider,” a publication of the University of Michigan chapter of the Hillel Foundation.

Posted on November 26, 2011

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are those of the individual contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LA Progressive, its publisher, editor or any of its other contributors.

Comments

This article is welcome but leaves big loose ends. In its next-last paragraph quote of Chief Justice Roberts, the article commendably states the guiding principle of free speech in this country: ‘the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. ‘
Welcome as this principle is, it does not cover the deep practical reasons why reasonable people at times attack instances of what some would call ‘free speech’ – and very possibly those practical reasons explain most of the ACLU Illinois membership loss noted by Prof. Cohen. Namely, whether or not the expressed ‘idea itself’ is offensive or disagreeable, the physical manifestation of its expression, the actual physical ‘speech’, may indeed be offensive or disagreeable or anyhow an unfair imposition which may have the effect of repressing or depriving or chilling OTHERS’ equal rights to free speech – or even worse.
Nothing in law or common sense argues against impromptu informal parading on the sidewalks, but when officials go so far as to allow one or another group to stage a special street-clogging or noisy parade – whether by the Nazi party or by Santa Claus and helpers – they are condoning inconvenience and even repression of equal rights of expression to all those OTHERS who could be on the street or equally well expressing THEIR views. And the matter can go beyond mere unfairness. In cases of extreme or repeated incitement, the right of ‘free speech’ degenerates into the notorious pseudo- ‘right’ to cry ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater – or even to collect a lynch mob.

Perhaps you don’t know the limitations on sidewalk speech, but they are well expressed in the panoply of employment related free speech retaliation cases, as there are very few private citizens retaliation claims due to the fact that litigation to exercise a private free speech case absent contingency fees or pro bono representation. In essence, the first amendment is futile and very little affect would be noticed by removing the amendment. This is due to the 11th amendment which basically set it aside to prevent “redress of grievance,” and if you don’t believe me read Bogan v. Scott-Harris in 1998 when they stated, “If corrupt…the law will not tolerate an action to redress the individual wrong which may have been done.” Id., at 599.4.”

However in Kaahumanu v. City of Maui in 2003 the Ninth Circuit addressed Bogan’s “legislative immunity” showing in simple terms the requirements abrogating immunity from officials. Bogan mentioned immunity for legislative policy that changed “far reaching law.” Sort of typically ambiguous of the court to say such a thing.

But the logic is “what is not far reaching” and that is “ad hoc” case by case decisions legislators can use to deny someone a right that only affects them. Humm! Most arbitrary legislative decisions denying a right that similarly situated individuals are given is arbitrary and violates 14th amendment or more accurately First Amendment right to “redress a grievance” or right a distressful creating legislative act. Thus most civil right plaintiffs, pro se, are stigmatized as emotionally distressed and do not deserve justice. The First Amendment designed to protect the “distress” (see Webster.com “grievance), is booby trapped with more emotional distress for filing a suit, and no self proclaimed rational person will object when the state makes correcting first amendment violations futile and the source of more intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In 2010 Norse v. Santa Cruz again met this issue. Prior to 2010, Norse had to deal with the ad hoc issue and it was upheld. But then the issue of weighing evidence was brought up, because what the district courts are doing is suppressing and misconstruing evidence, in Magistrate Findings and Recommendation pleadings supporting frivolous misconstrued defense pleadings. I know this from personal experience. Ironically I was discussing this catch-22 dilemma with an associate and he pointed me to Sean Harrington data in, “Disparate treatment of Pro Se,” http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/coloradocivilrightscouncil/message/1088

I found that this is sort of a policy to deal with the influx of civil right cases due to an influx money grab by legislators engaging in denials of land use permits. In addition, it is also prevalent in illegal retaliation to stop civil activist objections to what they perceive as abuse of power when they exercise the first amendment putting the activities of officials in public light, which may not be desirable.

In Norse v. Santa Cruz, Robert Norse reacted to a mayer or counsel man ejecting a public speaker from the microphone by giving a silent 1 second Hail Hitler salute that went unnoticed and caused no disturbance. 10 minutes later one person who noticed informed the speaker and Norse was arrested.

Now this was in a counsel meeting forum, and the Ninth Circuit stated “we will not let Santa Cruz rewrite the first amendment by accepting (using an analogy) thumbs up disturbances but arresting those with thumbs down unsupportive or objective of policy.” This is the video of the Ninth and it is very entertaining to watch them reveal the foolish state defense attorney who admitted he had no legal basis, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video_subpage.php?pk_vid=0000005940

Any action against an individual when the First amendment specifically says, “no law shall be made (shall make no law)” to stop protestors.

The only obstacle to protesting is judicial corruption, and the people who are powerless to stop it. It will require the repeal of the 11th Amendment, and a modification of the 14th amendment to make any defendant claim against plaintiffs free speech where “a law” is alleged as a basis to exclude free speech.

Fundamentally misconstruing claims is called perjury or lying typically, but in the courts when judges do it, they call it fundamentally misconstruing which they say is excusable. So in the land of the blind the one eyed man is blind.

Officials cannot deny a person a right without losing immunity, but the courts refuse to send these cases to a jury. Norse has been raped by the district courts and send them back to the rapist for a second attempt at reasonable discourse, but the district courts are not interested in consensual gratification or the preservation of rights. They are stopping citizens from weakening power not contained in the 11th amendment in the first place, because it is so wide spread.

Very true.
Free speech is important , or we have no space to speak out our criticism about government and corporations either.
We have a right to disagree and speak our mind as long as we don’t turn our feelings into physical- or material-destructive actions. This is the civilized, dignified way.
But…, when people get to the point that they feel their own survival, or that from their dear-ones, threatened, their fear might cause them to lose self-control and material destruction and physical-injury follows…

And who does the court lay blame on that when the judicial system through arbitrary or neglegent inaction to law is done to injustice without a rational basis?
. Macias v. Ihde explaines how this “arbitrary abuse of discretion” is the “cause of murder.”

1. Macias v. Ihde, 219 F.3d 1018, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2000):
The Appellants contend that the district court “fundamentally misconstrued” the constitutional deprivation at issue in this case. They maintain that the alleged constitutional deprivation occurred when the defendants failed to provide Mrs. Macias with equal police protection in the months leading up to her death. Their brief states: 35

The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants’] constitutional injury as `murder’ rather than `lack of equal protection.’ By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees’] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.

Amazingly Officials can be “the cause of murder” and local judges will excuse officials from liability right out in the open by “misconstruing” (legal lying).

But we citizens are so mentally incompetent we don’t think its wrong! Simply change the word “abuse” in the Title 18 USC 242 criminal accusation for “abuse of power” to the word “discretion” and identical criminal conduct becomes legal for a judge! Simply change “lying” or “perjury” to “misconstrue” and the world is a judges oyster! It’s that simple, but we citizens are mentally incompetent or we don’t care about justice…go figure!

So wave your flag proudly! This is what our lads in the Middle east die for! Hip Hip Hooray!

The First Amendment is a fable and does not exist. Hatred exists and there is an amendment that supports hatred and that amendment is the 11th amendment. This is because it immunizes U.S. citizens from liability for negligence and crime unequally, in violation of the body of the Constitution. Look at Congo, there police kill protesters as do are police, let’s examine the difference.

Re: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/26/4080996/congo-2-killed-in-clashes-days.html
Congo police “murdering protestors” represents speech retaliation in foreign countries whose citizens cannot claim the “constitutional protections” that the U.S.A. citizens have. Yet if you look at this incident, and look at what is going on in response to “protests” in the U.S.A., you will see no difference exists in the United States, other than Congo citizens are not living under the delusion that they have a right to assemble, or First Amendment type protection. This difference supports the delusion created in fallacies of logic, most of us pass off as “smoke and mirrors” as if there is no actual basis to stop it. The reality is that the belief by the majority of U.S. Citizens that U.S.A. government officials respect “free speech” and the right to “assemble” or to protest under the First (Suggestion) Amendment is not plausible on the face of facts, where the news media fail to address this immunity. Media misconstrue it as a normal uncontroversial issue, when the First Amendment “freedom of speech,” “assembly” is well understood by fifth as a fallacy called an “inalienable right.” This is evident by the overt unfolding of facts in the treatment of protesters; hence, the stigmatized uneducated Cesar Chavez park protesters, contrasted to the “white glove” treatment of the educated Davis students” who are allowed to set up “tent city” on the campus but denied to the Chavis park protestors. It doesn’t take rocket science to show that equal justice has no intention to equate, and protest is useless to redress this. The Constitution is not confusing, and it is deductively powerful allowing the use of algebra by putting an equal sign in between two set of facts and if they “are not equal to” they are not facially plausible, thus, it violates the Constitution. Well the Davis/Chavis protest shows this, so which way do we lean?

The Kent State massacre resulted in a civil rights “abuse of power” law suit by the families of the students legally murdered, who were just going to class and not actually part of the protest. The result was that because, the state police killers “”fired their weapons in the honest and sincere belief,” they were protected under the 11th amendment because, “action was against the State of Ohio and barred by the Eleventh Amendment,” see http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/640/640.F2d.214.79-3202.79-3115.html

To this day, a phenomenon exists in the U.S.A. that most of its citizens believe that they have freedom from government abuse and a right to “redress a grievance,” contrary to other governments. Propaganda unquestioned by journalists who are barred from personal use of rhetoric skewing logic arises when enforced by news medias ability to retaliate against journalists who report disgraceful news that undermines the current “regimes” agenda. Press monopoly under a few conglomerates simplify the process to punishment reporters who are considered detrimental to a political agenda when their favored officials face securitization. Hearst/Argile for example can create policy to weaken the free press ability to deter political entities from public scrutiny across the nation, and nothing can be done about. It was argued that the press corp. was made impotent by a case called New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). The court was able to reign in objective media using the “malice standard” as a means to bring a once “sovereign press” into the grasp of local or retaliatory jurisdictional admonishment in the form of surreptitious by forcing the press to overlook certain political activities that may be corrupt are draw speculation or heat to political parties in power. This is a well engineered process designed to cultivate out of due process the power of the press to deter by ad Populum scrutiny. Prior to Sullivan, the press had no deterrence from accusing officials of corruption where the 11th amendment protected even the guilty ones. Basically this undermines the power of the 11th amendment, which actually was the stated, “power of the electorate” if educated could vote out abusive officials, only if the press would report this abuse. This is stated in Bogan, supra. Sullivan subjects the press to limitations to justice that were out of the reach of the Eleventh Amendment immunity, which “sets aside” First Amendment power. This is a very clever orchestrated event that couldn’t happen out of coincidence as easily if the planets in our solar system could align. It is not improper to draw an inference from a remaining obstacle preventing punishment of public officials who behave badly. If the press aided the attack on favored officials caught violating abuse of power laws, it could weaken official sovereign power. Therefore, in order to prevent the Constitution from weakening their “constitutionally protected” power to protect their own possibility of incompetence, negligence, and god forbid arbitrarily abuse, silencing the press eliminates public scrutiny by the press, where judicial “abuse of power” had no reach prior to Sullivan.

At minimum, it protects officials who simply made a negligence mistake, but the argument is that criminal minded sociopaths can make honest livings in this realm without penalty.

For instance, if you run for a Judge position, it is impossible to violate 42 USC 1983, “abuse of power under the color of law” as long as you are wearing your robe in your court, see Stump v. Sparkman, among other cases. Thus, the court allows themselves to abuse power, simply by changing the word “power” to “discretion.” The malice standard, has removed the “freedom of the press” using stari decisis that didn’t exist as stari decisis unethically and ironically allowing judicial abuse of power as the final coup de gras so the 11th amendment no longer stood on its own, and now included removing the power of the press. Thus, the modern day press, and journalists, are now the same evil goons as those in Germanys pre holocaust propaganda machine. That press would willingly acquiesce to cover their governments, forget civil or human right abuse, but actual ethnic cleansing and mass murder for a meager paycheck. Similarly our press are only allowed to express the propaganda and enforce the suppression of culpable facts, similar to that which was allowing the holocaust to go on without obligation to inform society. If you notice, the media are the first to white wash official malfeasance, or police brutality, as if they are witnesses testifying in a trial, contrary to objective reporting of facts.

Those in journalism who turn a blind eye to this are literary sociopaths paid to cover up this creation of a utopian livelihood enjoyed by officials in an engineered plutocracy where, ironically, capitalism has become the benefit of socialistic bureaucracy indistinguishable financially from capitalism. Though this description may seem absurd, and can only be maintained by very clever manipulation of fallacy, which for several thousand years, has caused Aristotle undying fame for explaining the basis allowing absurdity to exist in the presence of educated men who are duped by these fallacies of logic and accept them without question. No elaborate concerted modern conspiracy need exist to support this abuse of power, as the “doctrine of immunity” is the devil buried subtly in the details.” This was first codified by Bartolus Sassofferotus during the foolish paradigms that condemned those who followed Copernicus, or criticized inquisitions based upon guilty parties not succumbing to drowning as a determination of guilt. Yet the Doctrine of Immunity illogical tyranny managed to preserve the sanctity of protecting modern day nobles from their incompetence or perversions against society. Today we call this the 11th amendment, and I find that the average and even above average thinkers are not aware of the basis or the cause and affect that is retarding the development of civil humanity.

The First Amendment due to amendments is now inert. If it was actually removed verbally from the Constitution it would actually be unnoticed in regards to any concerted Government abuse. The First Amendment is useless to obstruct the formulation of policy or obstruct retaliatory arbitrary abuse committed by the very worse minion type officials that nepotism or other influence peddling that allow and cultivate the interference of constitutional rights. The wording is left intact go avoid reality from setting in, but several amendments have stripped it from the constitution, thus removing the verbiage would have no substantial legal affect.

Pointing out this phenomenon in argument is subject to the “conspiracy theory” stigma, but it is cogent and must be taken seriously! Citizen inaction is deplorable. The fact that very educated people or the press could make a difference is left unanswered, because there is no debate, beyond this type of information process. Nevertheless, the press in a lot of cases, is suppressing this outward attack to preserve as a constitutional right, the power to abuse citizens without liability which will be the downfall of our country.

Abuse of discretion, is criminal and is supposed to put in prison those who offend when they violate Title 18 USC 242, for Abuse of Power. Our legal system allows fallacy to immunize offenders of this law from liability by granting them sovereign power to influence prima facie cases otherwise designed to reinstate financially, the damages done to citizen victims abused by government officials. Their motive for misconstruing facts of the damage has the affect of preserving tax dollars being awarded by Jury’s to abused citizens. Citizens who are no victims of abuse rally around this obstruction out of envy to prevent citizens from “capitalizing” on the damages that victims typically get to restore damages, and deter future abuse. Its as if this phenomenon has its own fail safe mechanism that causes citizens to rally around the weakening of civil rights by aiding corruption in a syndrome similar to “Stockholm syndrome.” Quiet perplexing but no suprize. The Germans call this type an “envy or “schadenfreud” when others take joy in the demise of others by aiding in the injustice that causes the demise.

Instead of removing the laws that should stop government abuse, the courts remove existing corruption laws, see recent 18 USC 1346, made useless. When all else fails, Supreme Court precedence is overcome by district court nullification, and there is no penalty or punishment to deter it. The District court simply “misconstrues” the complainant’s facts like magic, into non-actionable claims as if made by the unfavored party. This is done on paper and undeniable proof, but there is no crime against it do to changing the word “power” to excusable “discretion.” On paper, this satisfies layman or press surface inquiry very quickly. Otherwise, to remove the laws from the books would create a populace outcry. “Misconstruing” is none other than the use of two thousand year old concept of Fallacy, such as “red herring” or “straw man,” among other fallacies taught in logic to enable in argument the ability of the arguer magically attract popularity through deception. Misconstruing, in a future paradigm, if justice is the objective, will replace the word fraud, but for now, misconstruing is a “protected constitutional right” judges have for themselves, even if they are caught. Misconstruing facts is ground for reversal used by appellate courts when they catch district courts that nullify the Supreme Court precedent. There is no punishment for this nullification when it can be inferred from facts as overt fraud, and “inferences drawn from the record,” are excusable abuse of discretion by civil code of procedure statute. So if your case is disfavored, or even surreptitiously bribed, you lose, and your only hope is years of misery fighting corruption which is a futile endeavor in the United States by citizens. We all know you can’t fight city hall, another fallacy controlling cowards and idiots of society.

The point is that when the government acts in ways that hold private businesses to the scrutiny of civil liability in civil courts, and they are not treated equally. This violates the fundamental inalienable right of “equality” in the body of the Constitution. Apparently, that is why we have the 14th amendment. This amendment allows a Judge to commit fraud by “misconstruing” facts to set aside any right that barred the government from acting, prior to the 11th amendment. The Constitution was written under the assumption that officials would “make no law…” regarding the First Amendment. Yet we see volumes of “law made” prohibiting, “assembly,” peaceful non-fire in a theater,” speech. Why? Who knows, but U.S. citizens cannot mentally process, “make no law” as “make no law.” It is unbelievable and embarrassing, but true. Because the 11th amendment and 14th amendment reinstated what the Declaration of Independence called “the right inestimable and formidable to tyrants,” we know that right to be the power to escape justice. Though the Declaration named “Mock Trials” as a cause of action, we see that the 11th amendment, and the 14th amendment, inappropriately allow “Mock Trials” to manipulate facts by misconstruing them, nothing really changed, except our leaders cannot have a captor or wear a crown. I hope I have explained this in simple enough terms. What is the argument that defends this phenomenon that goes unnoticed by society that calls itself free? I know it, do you?

Placing my rhetoric in forums draws a plethora of attacks stemming from ad hominem abuse, where my facts are never attacked, and if so, merely misunderstood surface attacks as Supreme Court decisions explaining the meaning of statutes have not been used to qualify the statute which rarely stands alone. I am usually stigmatized by mob mentality in some negative way, as the basis for their position, usually that my argument is unpatriotic or anti government/police. In reality, I argue for better government simply by claiming that there should be some deterrence in the form of personal liability like the rest of us must endure! Engaging in public service for a living is no different than a person engaging in private business. Protection from liability would only require an insurance premium that contractors or doctors have to own in order to practice their trades. Public employees can kill you negligently and there is no deterrence contrary to common law that was supported by the premises in the Declaration of Independence, which was the basis for our Constitution. Private commerce is denied equality because public service commerce is set up in a utopian idealistic base where there is no negligence inappropriately unequal and in violation to the equal protection doctrine. In forum’s people are not here to learn but comment, and some get offended by my information that reveals or points to traditionally accetped fallacy. Nevertheless, I do get some very good responses that compliment my research on abuse of power, as I usually back up my claims with facts that are easily verified.

Abuse of power claims stem from what is called “animus” or motive. Speech can cause officials to retaliate. Usually arbitrary denial of due process against the speaker can occur if they “blow the whistle.” Retaliation is easily perpetrated by officials who understand they are protected by the 11th amendment, and this is willful malice or treble damages in a civil suit, but no worries, a victim of government abuse will never see it. Official power abusers have no reason if they have no moral conscience for self-discipline from punishing you with arbitrary denial of honest intangible services for challenging their god like authority.

Citizens get into hot water trying to redress this, a so called right, that creates the tort of “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” which is assumed which in other countries, has no redress right, thus was a catalyst of our revolution, and that is why free speech is among the First Amendment! What I am trying to convey is that officials have a constitutional right to be protected for committing “intentional emotional distress” and they are given a constitutional right to cause this distress. It is absurd! If you attempt to redress, the courts heap more distress on you for in violation of the very act, and they always keep a straight face an utter absurdity while they call it an inalienable right? There is no cogent argument or rebuttal to suggest I am off my rocker for insisting on my argument as true. I am only writing in an alarmist manner because the Supreme Court has stated my premises in a single sentence with Bogan v. Scott-Harris in 1998 when they stated, “…the law will not tolerate an action to redress the individual wrong which may have been done.” Id., at 599.4.” As long as the 11th amendment exists, it will not be over-ruled! If you do not agree, where is your argument? Is it argument ad patriotic? In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, and the king has immunity!

Notice in Bogan that they used the word “law.” It is reversible, and not stated in the Constitution. This is law derived from an ethics violation of judicial canon that immunizes themselves for violating the First Amendment, therefore unjust. With irony, I observe that just about every citizen of the United States, either is unaware of this phenomenon or perhaps they do not have the comprehension to understand what has happened. Using a hypothetical syllogism, If what I am saying is happening, then in reality there is no First Amendment. Therefore, is there a patriotic honor that exists for being a U.S. citizen? Is it anymore special or beneficial to the promotion of human rights for a better world? Is there an agenda for a world court to adopt actual reliance on a government that can punish its leaders, and what leader would allow their decisions to be judged by those they are accused of abusing? Can a government exist without immunizing officials from negligence or corruption? So far, humanity has never experienced this, other than from the time of 1776 thru 1795 where our nation experimented in government without Sovereign Tyrannical power. This freedom was silently ended without any peep from even a mouse! That amazes me! What do you think about this phenomenon? I call I the most diabolical coup to freedom, never told! There is a frontier still open in social science to achieve a more civilized society by ending “sovereign power” the best kept secret in the world of the blue bloods, and those they share it with.

We all we brag that humans flock to the U.S.A. for a better life. Do they come for a form of abuse that is less harsher than their former abuse? Is abuse under Title 18 USC 242 that exists here justify abuse as more humane? Is our abuse the less of two evils? Is abuse acceptable if it undercuts harsher abuse? Perhaps, immigrants are not seeking freedom from abuse, but financial benefits, with a knowledge that as long as they suppress political speech, their assets will not be jeopardized by exercising the fallacy of the delusion of believing there is a first amendment! Very little information is made public on the 11th amendment and its basis–the Doctrineof Immunity. The late Andy Rooney never wondered why government employees could skew justice, I wonder why?

LGBT Rights

Irene Monroe: Long before June officially became Gay Pride Month, and October “Coming Out Month” for the LGBTQ community, Halloween was unofficially our yearly celebrated “holiday,” dating as far back at the 1970s when it was a massive annual street party in San Francisco’s Castro district.

The Middle East

Richard Greeman: Anti-government demonstrations spread across Morocco after social media spread the story of Mousine Fikri, a fishmonger crushed to death inside a garbage truck as he tried to block the destruction of a truckload of his fish confiscated by police.